and who are you to say what we are “in reality” expressing? many of the people in the armed services right now signed up merely to get money for college, and never expected to be required to serve in a war. how is condoning putting these loved human beings into the path of death and pain supporting them?

Abby has exactly confirmed my point. She doesn’t see the men in our armed forces as moral agents or as patriots, but as consumers who somehow have found themselves in the middle of a war. Apparently Abby hasn’t watched any of the tv coverage and seen the quality, intelligence, and professionalism of our armed forces in Iraq. She hasn’t read or heard the letters written from GI’s who keep saying things like, “This is an awful place, but there’s no place on earth I’d rather be, I’m so happy to be a part of this.”

Did you support the “mission to which those troops were ordered by their Commander-in-Chief, and the cause to which they [were] devoted.” in the case of Somalia? If not I don’t know how you can counter the charge of special pleading.

Mr. Eubanks is asking if I believe there is a principled way to oppose any particular military action that one opposes. Yes, there is. You say right out that you oppose it. You don’t engage in these dishonest little word games we’ve been seeing from antiwar liberals like “I support the troops,” a phrase that creates the appearance of showing support for the war, but in fact does not, and is also objectionable in the way I described above. If you don’t support the war, then say you don’t support it. Don’t be sneaky.

I don’t know how old you are, but during the Vietnam war, many of us made the terrible mistake of confusing the soldiers who had to fight that war with the corrupt government that was responsible for it. I, personally swore to myself that if I needed to again pick up the banner of rationality against fundamentalist war mongers, I would never make that error in judgement again. That Sir, is what I mean when I say I support the troops.

Mr. Greenberg, I don’t doubt your sincerity and I only ask the following question because I’m truly interested in your answer:

Do you support those troops who are gung-ho in favor of the war and who agree with the Bush doctrine in every jot and tittle?

It would seem to me that you shouldn’t. If you consider the President and his crowd to be warmongers who are beneath your contempt, why exempt his willing accomplices in the military (who were, after all, not drafted like the kids were during Vietnam)?

Yes, Bubba, I do. I can’t fault any one who feels strongly enough about a cause to put themselves in this kind of jeopardy. My anger is not directed to them. I just feel that they are being misled. There are great many holes in the administration’s line on why we’re in this war. It’s those holes that suggest to me an ulterior motive that the public or our brave and loyal armed forces are not being made aware of. These troops, his willing accomplices, as you put it are following their patriotic conscience. In the spirit with which the Founding Fathers intended, so am I.

That’s a reasonable answer. Thanks.

Is it really reasonable to say that all brave, loyal American soldiers fighting in the war, believing it to be a just cause, are dupes? That seems rather like saying “I support the idiots, I mean troops”.

Hi Matt. Sorry I took so long to respond. I don’t think they’re dupes. I think they may have been somewhat misled. The actual cause of liberating an oppressed people is of course a good one. I just question the urgency of war in Iraq, at this moment in time, when in fact there are scores of governments who oppress their peoples. My problem is not with the troops, it’s with the administration. I listen to the speeches and just feel like a customer in a used car lot.

sorry i’ve taken so long to reply. lawrence, you’re making assumptions about me, and as with most assumptions, they’re incorrect. i do believe that our soldiers are patriots, and there are most definitely warriors in our army that are there by choice. however, there are also those who, as i said, joined the army because it seemed to be an easy way to pay themselves through college and didn’t expect to see combat. i have watched the tv coverage, listened to the radio, read the newspaper, and read their letters. unfortunately, you seem to have missed a large piece of the spectrum. also, i’m sure there would be more people in the armed forces voicing their opinions if, under the patriot act (the most unconstitutional atrocity i may have ever seen) it wasn’t considered high treason to speak out against the war, and punishable with life in the brig or even execution.

“unfortunately, you seem to have missed a large piece of the spectrum. also, i’m sure there would be more people in the armed forces voicing their opinions if, under the patriot act (the most unconstitutional atrocity i may have ever seen) it wasn’t considered high treason to speak out against the war, and punishable with life in the brig or even execution.” - Abby

Abby, this is way over the top. While I certainly have misgivings about aspects of the “Patriot Act”, especially since some of the people who voted on it are fairly close to being traitors themselves, claiming that there is a risk of execution for speaking out against the war is ridiculous. I seriously doubt that Hasan Akbar, the soldier who committed treason and murdered two of his officers while they slept in their tents, will be executed - as he deserves to - given the PC-rotted mindset of much of the military and the Bush administration. With both black skin priveledge and Islamic priveledge, Akbar will likely only receive a sentence of 20 years in the brig - with full legal, religious and TV “rights” ensured - all at taxpayer expense.

Just what do you think the military is, anyway? A welfare/job-training agency? Anyone with half a brain should realize that they could be sent into a war zone with scarcely a moment’s notice. Yes, I’m sure there are people there who thought they would be able to put in four years and get a tuition break for a college degree who are shocked to realize they could actually be shot at. I just hope the commanders keep anyone that clueless well behind the front lines - soldiers with that attitude are a danger to themselves and to their comrades.

it’s not ridiculous; look it up.

I think Mr. Auster is mistaken about the motives of those who are “for the troops but against the war.”
The distinction these people are trying to make is between those who oppose the mission for strategic reasons (they don’t want our side to lose, but believe that loss is inevitable, or that the cost necessary to achieve victory is too high, and so we should either avoid war or end it without achieving total victory so as to cut our losses), and those who actively wish us to fail (i.e. who support the other side, and who want us to suffer crushing losses).
Let’s assume that a bunch of soldiers are sent on a mission that you believe to be unwinnable (say, colonizing and democratizing Africa, as Jonah Goldberg once suggested). You can work to get the mission scrapped and the troops sent back, while at the same time hoping that, as long as the mission continues, that it is successful. This would be in marked contrast to those who are hoping for the mission to be a failure and who work to support the other side (such a some socialists who have announced support for the “anti-imperial resistance movement,” i.e. the anti-American insurgents).
This holds true even if most of the soldiers themselves agree with the mission. Just because one disagrees with them and thinks that they should be sent home, even if against their wishes, does not mean that he is rooting for them to fail.
Perhaps the exact terminology of the phrase “support the troops but not the war” is in error, but as long as there are people (no, not anyone on this board) who wish to imply that anyone who disagrees with the war is rooting for the other side, or who suggest that it is unpatriotic to question a war when our troops are getting shot at, or who conflate being antiwar with those who spit on returning soldiers from Vietnam, someone needs to make the distinction.